Actually the response an actual realitry accepter (as opposed to the Liars in Genesis strawman) would probably respond by pointing out that you have simply pulled such a probably out of your rectum and that it has no basis in fact. Either that or such a probability is based on the usual fallacies such as claiming that evolution is pure chance or by committing the one true sequence or serial trials fallacy which creationists often commit whan claiming that evolution is too improbable to of actually occured.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we could send the Earth back to the time of single-celled organisms, and let evolution start over.

Probability that the result would be exactly the same as what we have now: Pretty Damn Low.
Probability that something would happen: Very Very High.
Probability that the result, whatever it was, would eventually include religious fundies using the Anthropic Fallacy trying to prove their version of a deity: 1.

I can see you like drawing comics. I like drawing comics too! We should hang out and draw sometime!

But I have a suggestion about your writing. If you're going to do comics about science, you might want to research a bit more. You might find evolution interesting. I do. Seriously, check out neanderthal sometime, they're awesome!

I mean, if you just want to write fiction there's no harm in making up fake science. I think that's a lot of fun. It just doesn't seem to be your intent.

It is like spinning a roulette wheel. Evolution is the event of the ball stopping and landing on a number, what number though... depends on how the wheel is unfair and to what extent it is unfair. The unfairness used to represent the environment.

No, the problem with probability arguments is that they're flawed, because natural selection isn't governed by random chance. Thunderf00t on youtube has a great video debunking this. I think it's part of the "Why do people laugh at creationists?" series.

Anyway, this type of "yes there's still A CHANCE" wishful thinking seems way more characteristic of theists than atheists. I guess this cartoon is an example of projection.

Life as we experience it is indeed one of billions of possible outcomes. Now that the process has led to this, though, we can't argue probability backwards and say that the small chance is evidence of some nonrandom factor. This is just the way it happened. If it had happened another way, maybe there'd still be idiots like you talking about what a small chance that other way was.

I hope I managed to explain properly. It's a tough concept to articulate, since it comes intuitively to most people.

The problem with probability arguments is that you look pretty fucking stupid when the "probability" being discussed has been observed as reality. You may as well discuss the "probability" of Las Vegas being in Nevada.